Universidade Autónoma De Lisboa EVALUATION REPORT

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

EVALUATION REPORT

November 2010

Team: Tove Bull (Chair) Marian Dzimko Esther Giménez-Salinas Thomas Ziehmer Lee Harvey (Co-ordinator) Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3

2. MISSION, VISION AND STRATEGY ...... 5

3. FUNDING ...... 6

4. ORGANISATION ...... 6

5. INTERNATIONALISATION ...... 7

6. STUDENT SATISFACTION ...... 9

7. RESEARCH ...... 10

8. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ...... 11

9. QUALITY ...... 12

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 15

2 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

1. Introduction This report is the result of the evaluation of Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa (UAL). The evaluation took place on 24–26 November 2009 and 7–10th November 2010. The reason for the long gap between the first and second visit was that the second visit was originally intended in April 2010 but was postponed because flights were grounded by the volcanic dust cloud created by the Icelandic volcano mount Eyjafjallajökull. In between the visits UAL provided the evaluation team with some additional documentation.

1.1 Institutional Evaluation Programme The Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) is an independent membership service of the European University Association (EUA) that offers evaluations to support the participating institutions in the continuing development of their strategic management and internal quality culture.

The distinctive features of the Institutional Evaluation Programme are:  a strong emphasis on the self-evaluation phase;  a European and international perspective;  a peer-review approach;  a support to improvement.

The focus of the IEP is the institution as a whole and not the individual study programmes or units. It focuses upon:  decision-making processes, institutional structures and effectiveness of strategic management;  relevance of internal quality processes and the degree to which their outcomes are used in decision making and strategic management, as well as perceived gaps in these internal mechanisms.

The evaluation is guided by four key questions, which are based on a ‘fitness for (and of) purpose’ approach.  What is the institution trying to do?  How is the institution trying to do it?  How does it know it works?  How does the institution change in order to improve?

1.2 Name of the institution and the national context The Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa (UAL) is a private university in the Portuguese higher education sector. UAL is situated in the centre of Lisbon.

It is a co-operative owned by some of the staff and has been in existence for 25 years. Its main areas of teaching are arts, law, psychology and technology. Unlike

3 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

the public universities, and despite its name, UAL has, hitherto, had to have all programmes approved by the Ministry.

About two-thirds of UAL students are evening students and three quarters are post- 23 enrolments. UAL prides itself in having small class sizes and a good relationship between staff and students.

A quarter (26.7%) of new students (April 2009) came from Lisbon and surrounding cities (Cascais, Loures, Sintra and Amadora) and 28.1% enrolled at UAL because of the proximity to home. Half the students (50.4%) enrolled because the specific course was what they wanted and 29.5% because of the quality of teaching (although it is not clear how they knew this). In all 91.4% of the students indicated that they chose their course as their first option.

1.3 The Self-Evaluation Process The self-evaluation process was based heavily on a SWOT analysis using a questionnaire distributed to all staff and students between 3 June and 31 July 2009. These questionnaires were sent by email. The answers to the questionnaires were used to write the self-evaluation report. The questionnaires included open questions, in accordance with EUA’s (2007) Institutional Evaluation Programme Guidelines: Self-Evaluation and Site Visits. There were 38 respondents, including group answers from services, institutional agents and individual replies. A thematic content analysis was carried out using SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys.

It was noted that the responses were very diverse with some contradictory opinions. Overall, the University noted that engagement in the evaluation process was not as high as expected or worked for. The self-evaluation group suggested that a culture of evaluation is not yet deeply rooted at the university. The self-evaluation group thought the process could have been improved, given more time and resources. The self-evaluation, though, was regarded as valuable by those involved but expensive.

The Team were of the view that the self-evaluation clearly showed some issues that needed to be addressed and that it also provided the Team with useful information, if not deep understanding.

1.4 The EUA evaluation Team (later Team) The self-evaluation report of UAL along with the appendices was sent to the Team in October 2009.

The Team consisted of:

Tove Bull (Chair) Marian Dzimko Esther Giménez-Salinas Thomas Ziehmer

4 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

Lee Harvey (Co-ordinator)

The Team thanks the Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa for its warm hospitality. Thanks also to all the staff and students who attended the meetings with the Team for their willingness to share knowledge and concerns. A special thanks goes to Carolina Peralta who has been in charge of coordinating everything and who, along with her excellent team, ensured the visits went well.

2. Mission, vision and strategy UAL identified a number of key aspects of its mission, to:

 provide high-level (international) qualifications;  offer quality professional training;  foster the career development of staff;  provide access to life-long learning;  organise and promote cultural, humanistic, artistic, technological and scientific activities.

In addition the Team also noted that UAL is making a determined effort to adapt to the changing higher education landscape in Portugal, not least adjusting to the new legal framework and the accreditation procedures. It was noted that declining enrolments are a feature of the private sector and that several private universities in Portugal have ceased operation. UAL, however, has a sound financial basis.

The analysis of the questionnaires distributed for the self-evaluation indicated that while the Rector’s Office, Board of Directors and Supervisory Council seem to have a clear understanding of the mission, the same cannot be said of the other members of the staff, whose perception of the mission are sometimes poor.

The self-evaluation document suggested that the mission and objectives of the University need to be promoted internally as many of the staff did not appear to be well informed. It was hoped that the recent publication of the statutes might provide an excellent opportunity to further promote the mission and objectives. It seems, to the Team, that UAL has worked to engage staff in a better understanding of the situation and mission of the University, using the IEP visit alongside the new statutes to promote awareness.

2.1 Strategy UAL has no formal university-wide strategic plan. This is something that the university, in particular the Board, has discussed for some time. The University undertakes strategic thinking but has, hitherto, been reluctant to formulate a

5 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

written plan in a time of considerable turbulence because they want to retain flexibility and avoid any formal plan becoming a straightjacket.

However, the Team noticed an inclination to perhaps revise this approach. The self- evaluation document, for example, indicated a need to disseminate UAL’s mission and objectives more widely to staff, including objectives to be achieved. Furthermore, “the absence of a strategic plan must be urgently looked at, as it is a crucial tool to improve the strategic management of the institution”.

The Team noted that some departments have a longer-term business plan.

3. Funding As noted above, UAL is on a sound financial footing. However, it is very heavily dependent for funding on student fees. The University is experiencing a decline in first-cycle enrolment (Bachelor degrees) and has aimed to increase second-cycle enrolment (Masters degrees), with some success so far.

The introduction of post-23 enrolment in Portugal has been beneficial for UAL. Indeed, 76% of UAL students are over 23 years of age.

There has also been a notable shift in student enrolments from arts to technology. UAL’s tradition has been in arts education and the University maintains a dual focus. However, some arts courses have few students and this raises issues about the viability of small courses.

During the initial visit it was suggested that the university might develop courses overseas as a means to diversify its student body and thus its funding stream. However, such off-shore activity seemed, a year on, to have been put on the back burner.

4. Organisation UAL has, in the Team’s experience, an unconventional organisation. The Co- operative structure, which in this case means that the University is owned by some 50 or so members of staff who form a Supervisory Council (General Assembly), results in an elected Board of Management (of five members from the Supervisory Council) that acts as the Executive.

The Board is thus closely involved in the operation of the university and has a more ‘hands-on’ role than is usually the case. The Board meets every two weeks and, if necessary, more regularly as required by circumstances. The Board deals with all aspects of the University, having a wide-ranging agenda for its meetings. There is a strong bond between the Board and the University

6 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

However, the Board of Management delegates the academic activities to the Departments, providing only the framework within which such activity should operate.

One aspect of this is that any expenditure by Departments, that deviates from the previous year, has to be approved by the Board, who take advice from the administrative services; the latter have ongoing responsibility for the University finances.

Administrative services report to the Board and to the Rectorate. The Rector has been in office almost since the start of the University. He is now aged and there will be elections for a new Board of Management in 2011 who will appoint a Rector. The Rector’s responsibilities were described to the Team as representing the University in public fora and acting in an official capacity. The exact nature of the management responsibilities of the Rectorate and the extent to which the Rector’s office is involved in strategy development was not entirely clear to the Team.

There is a Scientific Council and a Pedagogic Council (which has 50% student representation) that both report to the Board and advise on programme developments, research initiatives and, in the case of the latter, such matters as procedures for assessing students.

The self-evaluation report noted a lack of coordinating bodies between departments (there is no faculty structure). However, the level of communication between departments at UAL was not, from the Team’s perspective, notably different from that in any university.

Each Department has committees, reflecting the University committee structure, and student representation. These seem to operate well in proposing developments and addressing concerns in relation to departmental responsibilities: viz. programmes, teaching and research.

The Board is considering making changes to the Departmental profiles or structure to enable the cross-fertilisation of arts and technology, which may help allay the issue of small numbers on some arts programmes.

5. Internationalisation Internationalisation is a complex area and covers a wide range of activities including (but not limited to):

 internationalising the curriculum;  cross-border research collaboration;  publishing in international journals;  cross-border staff exchanges;

7 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

 cross-border student exchanges;  recruiting international students;  off-shore teaching activities; collaborative, franchising or international campuses.

The Team was unsure what internationalisation approaches UAL was intending to take and perhaps the University needs to be rather more specific in identifying its internationalisation strategy and to decide exactly which of these (or other) avenues it wants to pursue.

In essence, there is a differential between the academic aspects of internationalisation and the business aspects. The former relates to the widening of the academic engagement with the subject (be it teaching or research) and the latter with the entrepreneurial or income-earning aspects. These, though, are not entirely independent developments. For example, recruiting overseas students, which may be perceived as a business strategy, also brings another perspective to the learning environment.

It would seem prudent to encourage, as far as possible, the development of internationalisation that impacts on academic development, such as internationalising curricula, publishing in international journals and, where possible (given the limitations of a part-time staff and a student body with other commitments), international exchanges.

The self-evaluation report notes that during academic years 2006–2009, 47 UAL students benefited from the Erasmus Mobility Programme, whereas 86 foreign students chose UAL for their study experience abroad. For example, UAL students attended the universities of Amsterdam, Barcelona, Rome, Madrid, Lugano and the Polytechnic Institute of Milan. Besides coming from these cities, foreign students also come from the Czech Republic, Poland, Norway and Brazil. As an incentive, UAL waives student fees by 50% while studying abroad (75% if studying outside Europe). Teacher mobility to European and Latin-American countries is also encouraged.

UAL considers it important to promote further the exchange of teachers and students, by making available more significant human and material resources and motivating those potentially interested. However, to do this, UAL regards it as necessary that the National Agency reinforces its support by increasing the number of scholarships and their value, which UAL regards as currently manifestly insufficient. Without this reinforcement, however, this aspect of UAL’s internationalisation approach will be very limited.

From a business point of view, it is sensible to exploit any good relations with other countries (particularly Portuguese speaking) to recruit students onto programmes at UAL. However, support will need to be put in place for incoming students if they are to feel part of UAL and fully integrated into Portuguese life.

8 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

The Team would, though, advise that any ventures into off-shore teaching be very carefully evaluated in advance. These ventures often fail and, from a business perspective end up costing more than they earn. It requires a considerable commitment by the university, financial, organisational and emotional, to establish an effective and rewarding overseas operation. It has to be entered in as a long- term project and is not a quick money earner.

6. Student satisfaction Overall, the Team noted a high degree of student satisfaction. The self-evaluation report indicated good satisfaction ratings compared to national averages. It showed, for example, a comparison of the responses of the internal questionnaire with the European Student Barometer, 2009. On many items, the satisfaction of UAL’s students is higher than the national average (in parentheses): teaching quality 85.4% (73.6%); practical course content 60.7% (55.5%); course content and structure 60.7% (58.5%); assistance with career planning 53.9% (38.3%); university facilities 52.7 (49.5%); good location 50.6% (39.0%); university administration service 24.7% (12.9%); and inexpensive location 21.3% (20.8%). The items in which UAL is behind the national average are: cooperation with companies 42.6% (59.4%); international orientation 22.5% (33.1%); campus activity 13.5% (24.6%); and accommodation availability 3.4% (10.4%).

Although this is a limited comparison, given the scope of the Barometer, it does provide an impression that was reinforced in meetings the Team had with students. It seems that the UAL is fortunate in having a mature student body with a high degree of goodwill.

The students appear to appreciate the communication with staff and the effectiveness of representation processes. They seem to be generally satisfied with the dialogue and appreciate that their views have been taken into account. They also understand when things cannot be amended as they would prefer and appreciate the dialogue that informs them of why the status quo has, at least for the time being, to be maintained.

There were several references to the UAL ‘Family’, which was indicative of the good relations between staff and students.

The Team explored in some detail, what students regarded as the good aspects of studying at UAL. The clear indications were that the following were perceived as good:

 Teaching; including the supportive and caring attitude of most staff, the pedagogy employed, notably the use of case studies.  Student-staff relations, notably the accessibility and responsiveness of staff.

9 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

 The employability element of courses, that they were applied, had appropriate professional orientations and were up to date.  Flexible assessment options; being able to opt for coursework or examinations.  The location of UAL.

However, the self-evaluation report noted that, perhaps in contrast to the above, that in the report on the survey made to first-cycle students undergoing continuous assessment (academic year 2008–2009) that “punctuality” of lecturers and “knowledge of the subject” are ranked high, while their “ability to stimulate students’ interest” and “encouragement of students’ reflection and critical thought” are ranked lowest.

Students did express some other concerns. These included facilities such as the opening times of the Library, access to IT, the intranet and the wireless network. There were some concerns expressed in the first visit about the opening times and limited food options in the refectory, although these did not surface on the second visit. The main concern seemed to be the problem with some rooms, especially in the basement, which lacked appropriate air-conditioning or ventilation.

The final concern, for some students, was having to pay fees. There was no suggestion that the fees were unduly high, just that attending UAL required having to pay fees, whereas public universities were much cheaper. Students acknowledged that UAL adopted a flexible approach to fee collection when students had financial difficulty.

7. Research UAL is primarily a teaching University although it does undertake research. Nonetheless the research activities are limited, not least because a high proportion of non-full-time teaching staff (with other jobs within and outside higher education) makes it difficult to develop a critical mass to support and develop research.

UAL, though, is building up its research in some areas, despite the lack of a substantial track record to attract external funding. The university is investing its own resources into developing research, which in the last resort, means that students, through their fees, are subsidising research.

Some research, especially that linked to external organisations is (in part) externally funded. However, some of this, it seems, is applied and rather more like consultancy, which, despite being excellent work, is unlikely to contribute to establishing a traditional research track record.

Most research publication by UAL staff is national rather than international, perhaps reflecting the locally applied nature of much of the research endeavour.

10 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

The University is intending to build up networks and develop partnerships with other universities as a way to enhance its research activities and attract external funding. This is a sound strategy but one that takes a lot of work.

The University is intending to identify areas of research that have potential for success and to prioritise investment in those areas. This seems a sensible tactic as UAL would not be able to compete with research universities across the full range of its departments.

In the meantime, an umbrella organisation, Institute for Pluridisciplinary Research of UAL (IIPUAL), provides a tangible indicator of acknowledgement and (limited) support of research. It gives all researchers a feeling that their activities are valued by being included within the umbrella research organisation. Further, IIPUAL (and the research centres that fall under its umbrella) play a role in stimulating and promoting research at a departmental level.

The University is aware that, for accreditation purposes, there is a need to employ more PhD-qualified teaching staff, which may also serve to boost research activity. The self-evaluation report proposes:

“The need to raise the level of qualification of the academic staff is undeniable. Therefore, they should be given conditions to obtain not only master and doctorate degrees, but also to attend post-doctorate programmes as soon as possible. Therefore, whenever possible, research projects (even if resulting from protocols with external institutions) should be associated to the preparation of dissertations/papers. Given the need to develop and reinforce the levels of internationalization, projects and initiatives involving other institutions, particularly renowned foreign institutions, must be strongly supported.”

8. Information and Communications Technology Two aspects of the Information and Communications Technology at UAL were apparent to the Team.

8.1 Access to the UAL wireless network Although there is a need to have a secure network, access to the UAL wireless network has been a problem for some students. UAL, like any other Portuguese Higher Education Institution, has joined the international network “eduroam” and problems students have had maybe the result of poorly configured laptops for some users.

11 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

8.2 Emails It seems that UAL needs to review the situation of university emails. It appears that most students do not use the UAL email for several reasons. First, they prefer to use their work or home email (or both). The UAL email is an additional address that many students don’t appear to want. Second, there seems to be no requirement for the vast majority of students to use their UAL email address.

The university needs to consider why they need to supply UAL email addresses, what they are used for and, if they are to be a communication device, how to encourage students to use it.

Other universities have met this situation and have done things such as provide an email address that matches the student name, or allow students to change their address to one that they prefer. Others have allowed students to divert material from the university email to other home/work use emails. Some universities enforce the use of university-provided emails by requiring all assessed coursework to be uploaded via University email addresses and tutors only respond to email conversations about the course from university addresses, and so on.

The issue of email addresses also arises in relation to the formal evaluation questionnaire (discussed below (9.2)).

9. Quality UAL has a range of both formal and informal approaches to assuring the quality of their provision. These include the following.

 Formal student evaluation questionnaire.  A questionnaire distributed to staff for their views on their teaching.  A process of course development and curriculum design.  A formal process of student representation.  A Student Association that inter alia represents student interests.  A student ombudsperson.  Analysis of data on student outcomes.  An informal process of dialogue between students and staff.

However, the university tends to highlight the formal student questionnaire rather than any of its other quality processes. This may be because much of the other process is less easy to document or because they are not part of the Office for Self- Assessment of Quality.

9.1 Formal student evaluation questionnaire The Office for Self-Assessment of Quality was created in 2007. It undertakes different types of online questionnaires, directed at: new students; students

12 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

undergoing continuous assessment; lecturers; alumni and job providers. Reports are prepared and presented to the Rector and the Board who disseminate them, as appropriate, within the University.

The self-assessment report acknowledged that this is a fairly recent project, which needs to be improved and reinforced in order to attract a higher rate of participation. Prior to the establishment of this on-line process, staff used to distribute paper questionnaires in class and response rate, where this was done, were much higher. The current response rate to the on-line questionnaire is often less than 10%.

There are a number of reasons for this. The questionnaire is distributed to the university-provided email address and, as noted above, this is little used by students. Second, students suffer from questionnaire fatigue as they receive an email for all units, which can mean a dozen or more identical questionnaires a year. Third, it is possible that the questionnaire, being standardised, fails to get to the issues of importance to the students. Fourth, it is unclear that there is any systematic action taken as a result of the questionnaires. Fifth, if there is any change, it seems that the students have to discover these changes for themselves, as there is no formal communication of such changes.

9.2 A questionnaire distributed to staff for their views on their teaching The Team did not find out much about how this questionnaire was used to inform quality. It was not clear whether, for example, it was used as part of the teaching staff’s own reflection on teaching (although this was not in the context of any annual review, as this does not exist at UAL), or whether, for example, the questionnaire was to inform the Board of the teachers’ perspective. In view of the limited time available, the Team was not able to pursue detailed enquiry on response rates or how results of this questionnaire are addressed.

9.3 A process of course development and curriculum design The University has in place a formal process of course development and curriculum design that originates in Departments and ends with the external accreditation agency. In essence, an idea is developed in the Department, which is assessed by the Departmental Scientific committee, is then subsequently evaluated by the Scientific Council to see if it fulfils academic and quality criteria and also by the Administration if there are financial implications. The Scientific Council advises the Board, whose formal endorsement is required, before changes are proposed to the Ministry or the external accreditation agency.

This process seems to the Team to be rigorous and indicative of a thorough quality- assurance process for new and modified programmes.

13 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

9.4 A formal process of student representation UAL has a formal process of student representation that appears to be effective. This acts as a vehicle for student feedback and representatives appear to be accessible and able to represent student concerns to the University, initially at Department level but subsequently, through other vehicles, at University level.

In addition to Departmental representatives, students make up 50% of the Pedagogic Council. The Pedagogic Council consists of 20 members and is responsible for setting pedagogical guidelines and teaching and evaluation methods. It also has to express its views on: student feedback processes; assessment practices; the creation of study cycles; courses and procedures to be discontinued; and academic and examination timetables.

Departmental committees have only two student representatives.

9.5 A Student Association that inter alia represents student interests UAL has a Student Association that undertakes the normal range of social and support activities expected of such a body. This includes representing student interests in proposing changes within UAL.

There appears to be a good relationship between the Student Association and the management of the University.

9.6 A student ombudsperson As required, UAL has in place a student ombudsperson. This is the person who acts in the last resort if the internal process fails to resolve issues or concerns raised by students.

The student ombudsperson submits monthly reports to the Board of Directors and the Rector’s Office on the problems presented to him by students and suggests possible solutions. During 2009–10, the ombudsperson at UAL had only to deal with two cases, which suggests that the internal resolution processes are operating effectively.

9.7 Analysis of data on student outcomes The University also undertakes analyses of student outcomes data to inform their quality processes. For example, the self-evaluation report noted that, over the past three academic years, completion rates have been increasing (above 50% in most subjects) in architecture, psychology and communication sciences. In law, economics and computer management, rates are substantially lower (most below 50%). However, law and computer management have shown positive progress in the last two years.

14 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

It does seem, though, that the University could do more to analyse the employment that graduates obtain after completion. It appears that UAL underplays the quality indicators from graduate employment.

9.8 Informal approach UAL appears to have an effective informal process of dialogue between students and staff that feeds directly into course improvements. This draws considerably from the dialogue and goodwill of a predominately mature student body. This informal process is not to be underestimated as it provides useful indicators to staff about delivery of programmes and can be a powerful motivator.

9.9 Flexibility and responsiveness Overall, the Team were impressed with UAL’s flexibility and responsiveness. One aspect that reflects a high quality provision is the responsiveness of staff to student and business imperatives in the delivery of accredited curricula. The staff have a good rapport with students and appear to take on board their comments about the way course content is delivered. Many students are mature students in work and they bring with them a deal of practical knowledge and experience, which can be useful in helping make the teaching and learning applied to real world practice. It seems that some teachers engage in dialogue with students about the way the accredited content can be taught and are flexible in developing appropriate strategies that meet the needs of teachers and learners. This approach provides an important improvement element of the quality process. However, it is likely that it goes unremarked as it tends to be informal. Yet this flexible approach enhances the learning and teaching situation.

9.10 Pedagogical training of lecturers UAL has also indicated intent to undertake pedagogical training of lecturers. The self-evaluation report noted that Portuguese universities have neglected the pedagogical training of lecturers. However, pedagogical preparation will lead to improvement in the quality of the teaching-learning process. Hence the self- evaluation team proposed a voluntary (but encouraged) process of appropriate seminar, conference and workshop attendance to help staff improve their pedagogy.

However, during the visits the Team heard very little about the proposed pedagogical training.

10. Conclusions and recommendations In conclusion the Team encourages UAL to maximise its advantages. These are:

 evening teaching;  the goodwill of mainly mature student body;

15 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

 the applied teaching and curricula focus;  the flexibility of the University in adjusting programme delivery and in proposing new programmes in response to market shifts;  the employability and subsequent employment rates of graduates;  the personal touch: small class teaching, accessibility of staff, the UAL ‘family’ approach and ease of dialogue.

The Team made ten specific recommendations.

1. Make strategy explicit and more focused than the broad general aims contained in the self-evaluation report. The Team were of the view that a clearly stated strategy plan would be beneficial for the whole University. The Board may be engaged in strategic thinking but this may not percolate, as has been suggested in the self-evaluation report, to the whole University. Even at a time of uncertainty a strategic plan, with contingencies, is a valuable aid to achieve objectives. It should, perhaps, be accompanied by the development of a flexible implementation plan or process.

2. Reconsider the strategic value and direction of the internationalisation strategy. The Team encourage a thorough analysis of the aims and potential of the internationalisation process. UAL might want to reconsider the wisdom in establishing off-shore programmes, which have significant risks attached to them; if indeed this is still an active proposal.

3. Make use of the student good will through continuing dialogue. The Team recognised that UAL has an advantage in having students who associate closely with the University and act as both ambassadors for the University and as sources of good ideas for development. The strong dialogue is something to nurture and foster.

4. Develop a better formal student feedback and action cycle. The Team noted that although there is a student feedback questionnaire process in place that there is no clear indication of a complete action cycle. Data is collected (at the moment from a very small proportion of students) and reports produced. There needs to be a mechanism to ensure that student views are systematically addressed and acted upon and students systematically informed of the changes that have taken place as a result of their feedback. It may be that, unless response rates are improved, the University will want to reconsider whether to continue with a formal course-level questionnaire.

5. Rethink students’ email addresses. The Team suggest that the University reconsider the purpose and use of University-provided email addresses and then take steps either to make them more effective or to drop them.

16 Institutional Evaluation Programme/Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa /November 2010

6. Consider further development of the evaluation of support services. The Team suggest that UAL may want to invite more detailed feedback on the support services (external to the classroom) including careers advice, library, ITC, the Student Association and student representation.

7. Make use of the good connections with commerce and industry. It seemed to the Team that UAL had some good connections with local commerce and industry and that these should be maximised where possible through joint activity (consultancy and research), sponsorship, visiting lectureships and recruitment events for graduates.

8. Focus and prioritise research. The Team agrees that the UAL needs to grow research but that to be able to challenge on a national, let alone international front, it needs to prioritise and support a couple of strong areas, while not discouraging research in other parts of the University.

9. Development of research may require appointing more full-time staff with PhDs. The Team agrees with the University that there will be a need to recruit more teachers with PhDs but that this may prove difficult in the current climate.

10. Consider the possibility of having external members on the board. The Team is aware that the Board meets frequently and is very much an executive group. The Board, though, may want to consider the possibility of external member(s) in some capacity, either on the Board itself or on other of the University bodies.